Coaching cut #52: Hypothetical modelling

Coaching Cuts: Bite-sized tips for better coaching

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Pitfall: Hypothetical modelling

This pitfall lives in the modelling stage of coaching. The coach knows they need to show the coachee what the action step looks like. But instead of standing up and doing it, they just describe what they would do: “Here’s what I’d do. I’d give them the definition, and they’d call back the word. And I’d keep it pacey, and I’d use my hands to cue them in.” It sounds like modelling. But it isn’t. It leaves the destination uncertain.

It’s an easy pitfall to fall into...

Describing a technique is comfortable. You can do it sitting down. You don’t have to perform anything or risk looking awkward. And because you’re talking about the technique in detail, it can feel like the coachee is getting everything they need. They’re nodding. They’re asking questions. They seem to follow.

The problem is that many teaching techniques live in the body, not in the description. Call and response is a good example. You can explain the idea in ten seconds: give a prompt, students respond in unison. But the technique only works because of things that are very hard to put into words. The pace, the energy ant the physical cue that gets everyone responding at the same moment. These are things you feel when you see them, and they don’t survive being described.

When a coach describes rather than demonstrates, the coachee builds a mental image from the words. But that image is their interpretation, not the coach’s model. The coachee might hear “keep it pacey” and picture something much slower than what the coach means. They might hear “use your hands to cue them in” and have no idea what that gesture actually looks like. The words are too imprecise to carry the information.

The result is a coachee who says “I think I can picture it” but then can’t execute it. They move into rehearsal without a clear reference point. When they get it wrong, neither coach nor coachee can pinpoint why, because the target was never made visible.

The pitfall in action

In the clip below, the coach explains what call and response looks like rather than modelling it. The coach describes the pace, the hand cue, and the vocal inflection, all from a seated position, all in conditional language (”what I’d do is...”). The coachee nods along but ends up asking the question that gives the pitfall away: “How fast is pacey? And what does the hand thing actually look like?”

So, what do we do instead?

We get up and do it. We don’t describe the technique. We perform it, as close to reality as possible, so the coachee can see it, hear it, and feel the pace and energy for themselves.

This means treating the coaching room like a classroom. If the technique involves physical cues, you use them. If it involves pace and energy, you bring that energy. If it requires students, the coachee becomes the student for the duration of the model.

The difference between describing and demonstrating might feel small, but it changes everything. When you describe, the coachee imagines. When you demonstrate, they witness. And witnessing gives them something that language never can: the feel of the technique. How fast is fast. How sharp is sharp. What the cue actually looks like in motion. These are the details that make the difference between a technique that works and one that falls flat.

In the clip below, the coach models call and response for real. The coachee plays the class and responds to the prompts. Afterwards, the coachee names the gap between what they had imagined and what they just experienced: “I was imagining something much slower and more careful. This is punchy. I wouldn’t have got that from just hearing about it.”

Let’s see it done better...

Thanks to all our readers for your support! Please keep telling us your coaching experiences and we hope the cuts help you to keep getting better!